Is 6th Edition too good?

[Kevin48220]

I agree. I think that stressing adaptation/improvisation is a major thrust of the rules set. I've had a couple of games where there were objectives that I knew I couldn't accomplish for one reason or another. It forced me to really think about the objectives I could meet, and to focus my play on denying objectives to my opponent, rather than just playing out the strategy I'd thought of when making the list.

On that level, I think it's also realistic. Some armies show up better prepared than others, some have terrain advantages. Sometimes you show up with a knife at a gunfight. But, that's not a guarantee of a loss. Weird stuff happens on the ground. It's one of the things I really like about 40K, as opposed to other model-based strategy games I've played before. I've had random things totally go my way, and not; ditto for opponents. The issue is not whether or not something unexpected takes place; the issue is how you adapt to it and whether or not you can use it to your advantage.

In that, I think 40K's random/entropic elements actually make it much more "real" than any other strategy game I've played. It reflects the reality that you cannot control every element going into a battle, nor can you control everything that happens on the ground.

Seriously, I hope they put in rules for weather.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

As has been said prior in here it is all about risk management, and being able to adapt in the face of adversity. I love things like mysterious terrain, and mysterious objectives, it makes the game far more interesting than "go in this direction, shoot these guys, and assault, hope you get the objective but once you do its hard to get off of it." That last bit always seemed to be an issue in many games, best you could do was contest for a tie most of the time if you ever got behind. The new edition brings in a lot more risk, and thus a lot more risk management, and really tests a person's ability to adapt to a situation. I have had games where I couldn't have a chance at winning because of what the dice threw at me, or I have had that one thing I needed given to me at the last moment, or I have had even games. It throws up the standard, and forces you to change on the go, instead of just coming up with your basic strat when you write the list and never have to change from it much.

[Aspire to Glory]

I like the random aspects. I'm a casual player who games for the fluff and theme.

IMO "math hammer" gutted the heart of the game.

Anything that makes the outcome a little more dramatic is a good thing in my book.

[Slacker]

I find it amusing that those 3" assault charges that fail over open ground that everyone complains about should happen just about as often as those miraculous 12" charges. I do think that charging through difficult terrain is a little to harsh, even fleet has a hard time balancing out that sometimes.
I haven't won many games of 6th edition, but all the games I've played have seemed to be fairly close and interesting games. I also don't mind the game taking longer al long as I'm having fun playing it.

[DarkLink]

IMO "math hammer" gutted the heart of the game.

Poor balance gutted the game, and is still a problem. Mathhammer was merely a mechanism to facilitate that. 6th ed fixed a few of the major balance issues, which is singlehandedly the reason I like 6th better than 5th. 6th opened up the playing field significantly, and it wasn't any of the random elements that did it.

[Anggul]

Anything that makes the outcome a little more dramatic is a good thing in my book.

I really don't think the mighty warriors and deadly aliens tripping on their own feet at the climactic moment of the battle classes as 'dramatic'. Over-randomness doesn't make the game more fun and dramatic, it makes silly things that just aren't right fluff-wise happen. It would be fine if there was at least some kind of minimum.

Generally my games of 6th have been great fun, but it does suck for both sides when something daft like failing a 4" charge happens. It isn't fun for the guy rushing gloriously into combat with you, and it isn't much fun for you seeing the opponent's troops completely screw all immersion and somehow fall flat on their faces, only to be gunned down by your troops and leave you with a pretty hollow victory.

'I won because he failed to run at me from a few feet away' has got to be the worst war story ever.

[Animus Silvanna]

I really don't think the mighty warriors and deadly aliens tripping on their own feet at the climactic moment of the battle classes as 'dramatic'. Over-randomness doesn't make the game more fun and dramatic, it makes silly things that just aren't right fluff-wise happen. It would be fine if there was at least some kind of minimum.

Generally my games of 6th have been great fun, but it does suck for both sides when something daft like failing a 4" charge happens. It isn't fun for the guy rushing gloriously into combat with you, and it isn't much fun for you seeing the opponent's troops completely screw all immersion and somehow fall flat on their faces, only to be gunned down by your troops and leave you with a pretty hollow victory.

'I won because he failed to run at me from a few feet away' has got to be the worst war story ever.

Couldnt agree more, There is nothing fantastic or strategic about super over random rules its just makes you have to give a deep sigh out loud. Really the only thing i hate about 6th is flyers (mostly just cause they are annoying but meh) and the charge rule. everything else is damn peaches and cream and i can get over. Well i guess really i get over it every time i play anyways cause i still play... LoL But GW is getting closer to balance.